Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description still adds substantial behavioral context the agent could not infer: publication lag (days to months, DoD 90 days late), the meaning of the amount (committed so far, not total), absence of prices/returns, and an explicit prompt-injection caution about quoted USAspending text.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the resource, scope, source and ordering before the caveats, and most sentences carry distinct information. It runs long and closes with a near-duplicate of the earlier 'not advice' claim ('Information, not advice'), which is minor waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating the fields (company, ticker, agency, amount, day, purpose, usaspending.gov URL). With lag, amount semantics, and injection warnings included, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters like limit, since, cursor and ticker are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the $10M floor and the award-day semantics of `since` but adds no syntax or constraint beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (federal contract awards of $10M+, to listed companies, from USAspending), the ordering (newest first), and enumerates the returned fields. An agent can separate it from get_signals, get_lobbying, and search_filings at a glance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clarifies what the tool is *not* ('not a trade, never counts toward a signal, not advice'), which usefully steers the agent away from misusing it as signal data, but it gives no positive when-to-use guidance or names a sibling alternative. The one concrete routing hint (use search_filings for awards as published) lives only in the schema, not the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.